Dems aim to reverse 'power-hungry' Supreme Court ruling against regulators

Recognizing the threat posed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down by the right-wing justices earlier this month, a pair of U.S. House Democrats on Thursday introduced the Corner Post Reversal Act.

Proposed by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Subcommittee on Administrative Law, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Ranking Member Lou Correa (D-Calif.), the bill would reverse the 6-3 decision in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

The high court's conservative supermajority decided that the Administrative Procedures Act's (APA) statute of limitations period does not begin until a plaintiff is adversely affected by a regulation—making it much easier for corporations to sue government agencies.

"The Corner Post decision was an erroneous and power-hungry move by the MAGA majority on the court, that was intentionally dismissive of the will of Congress expressed in the Administrative Procedure Act," Nadler said in a statement. "The court has opened the floodgates to allow big corporations and private interests to object and challenge commonsense rules that protect our air, water, land, environment, food, medicines, labor, and children."

Correa similarly called out the high court for taking aim at the APA's statute of limitations, which "opened the door to unlimited challenges that may overburden our judicial system while harming Americans and small businesses."

"This piece of legislation is an important and essential step in reestablishing the certainty that comes from the finality that the six-year limitation provided," he added.

Specifically, as the congressmen's offices detailed, their bill:

• Reestablishes the statute of limitations found within Section 702 of the APA;
• Clarifies congressional intent that agency rules must be challenged within six years after being finalized;
• Codifies that the right to seek judicial review accrues under the APA when the agency finalizes the rule;
• Protects well-developed and scientifically based agency actions from attacks by private interests, thereby assuring protections for consumers, the workforce, and our environment; and
• Assures that our courts are not flooded or strained by claims by actions commenced after the six years following the agency action.

"This bill, in conjunction with the Stop Corporate Capture Act," said Nadler, "addresses the need to protect longstanding and long-working rules established by administrative agencies and protect our federal system from arbitrary and frivolous attacks that would have been welcomed under the Corner Post holding."

The Stop Corporate Capture Act was introduced last year by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She is also backing the bill introduced Thursday alongside Reps. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), and Nikema Williams (D-Ga.).

"Public agencies exist to create rules and implement laws that protect the American people and their families from unsafe working conditions, dangerous food and drug products, and polluted water and air," said Jayapal. "It is imperative that our public agencies are able to enact measures to keep all Americans safe and healthy without being subject to constant lawsuits from bad actors."

The legislation—which is unlikely to get through the Republican-controlled House—is also supported by the Small Business Majority along with the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance that includes the Center for American Progress, Earthjustice, and Public Citizen.

Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, stressed in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's Corner Post decision makes Americans less safe" and argued the new bill "would prevent the disruptive impact" of the recent ruling.

"If Congress does not act," she added, "long-standing regulations that have protected consumers, workers, our environment, and public health and safety for years, even decades, could be newly challenged by corporations that want to boost their profits at the public's expense."